Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[Akhenaten]

Since DOC is as impressed with "oral tradition" as he is the "written word", I just thought it might be worth pointing out that neither qualify as evidence purely on their own merits...

They most certainly qualify as possible "historical" evidence and we are in a history forum.

What do the quotation marks signify here, DOC? Are they showing that even you realise that you're using your own, private definition of history, just as you use your own erroneous definitions for most things?

 

[paximperium]

So DOC has clearly demonstrated:
1)Oral history is unreliable
2)There are no eyewitnesses accounts of Jesus in the Bible
3)He finds Logical fallacies, irrelevant opinion and false facts compelling to confirm his biased beliefs.

 

[paximperium]

They most certainly qualify as possible "historical" evidence and we are in a history forum.

Please define "historical" as you are dishonestly using it and no one else does.

 

[Kapyong]

This is normal for ancient documents which is why we don't even have a signature for Julius Caesar (not to mention no tomb or ashes for him either).

Not so.
The tomb of Caesar has been known from his death till now :

http://catholic-resources.org/Photos/Rome99/Forum-06.jpg
http://catholic-resources.org/Photos/Rome99/Forum-07.jpg
From:
http://catholic-resources.org/AncientRome/Forum.htm


Kap

 

[DOC]

No doubt this contributes to DOC's fallacious notion that eyewitness accounts (spoken or written) have the same intrinsic value as Empirical Evidence.

Actually I never said it has the same value but of course it does have value in many cases, ask historians.

Of course I haven't even addressed the fact that what evidence does exist indicates that the authors of the Gospels are most likely not who they claimed they were,

And there are biblical scholars who disagree with this, for example the author of "Misquoting Truth (A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman)".

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Truth-Guide-Fallacies-Ehrmans/dp/0830834478

 

[Simon39759]

I noticed you left out the sentences in my post immediately following the above sentence which were:

If Barack Obama went on TV and said he saw an alien at Camp David, that would increase the probability in my mind that aliens exist. If a transient on a street corner told me he saw an alien last night it probably wouldn't increase the probability that aliens exist for me.
(bolding and size added)
__
Anyone who read the whole paragraph which you cut short would have or should have known that I meant (regarding the president of India) it increased the probability in your own opinion and not whether or not it was an actual fact or not.

In my mind the probability of intelligent life existing on other planets might be 1 in a hundred. If Barack Obama, (someone whose opinion I trust) gets on national TV and says he saw an alien at Camp David. I might bump up that probability to 5 in a hundred. There is nothing fallacious about that because were talking about my subjective beliefs.
The same thing occurs all the time in civil trials. If you have a credible witness say they saw something happened it increases the probability of it being true (in the minds of the jurors) over a non-credible witness.

So, now the goalposts are 'it's subjective'...
Good, good.
So, you agree that the whole notion of 'evidence' was erroneous? And that Geisler, who argued that he could objectively prove the existence of God, was sadly mistaken?

 

[paximperium]

Actually I never said it has the same value but of course it does have value in many cases, ask historians.

Great. Since there are no eyewitnesses to your Jebus, where is this evidence again?

And there are biblical scholars who disagree with this, for example the author of "Misquoting Truth (A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman)".

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Truth-Guide-Fallacies-Ehrmans/dp/0830834478

That's nice. Do you have an actual argument or evidence again? BTW: What scholarship has this fella done?

 

[DOC]

So, now the goalposts are 'it's subjective'...
Good, good.

What are you referring to when you say "it's". And if it has anything to do with me give whole post of what I said.

So, you agree that the whole notion of 'evidence' was erroneous?

Of course I don't, read post 13, and then all the evidence I've brought in, some of which is in post 13104.

And that Geisler, who argued that he could objectively prove the existence of God, was sadly mistaken?

Where is the quote that Geisler said this?

 

[Akhenaten]

No doubt this contributes to DOC's fallacious notion that eyewitness accounts (spoken or written) have the same intrinsic value as Empirical Evidence.

Actually I never said it has the same value but of course it does have value in many cases, ask historians.

Edited by LibraryLady: 

Edited for civility

Of course I haven't even addressed the fact that what evidence does exist indicates that the authors of the Gospels are most likely not who they claimed they were,

And there are biblical scholars who disagree with this, for example the author of "Misquoting Truth (A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman)".

<ad snipped>

my bolding


You tell us to "ask historians" and in the same breath, quote the works of "biblical scholars" at us. Are you for real DOC, or just a parody of an apologist?

Biblical scholars provide evidence for the veracity of the blble?!?eleven?!?

Edited by LibraryLady: 

Edited for civility

Edited by LibraryLady: 

Edited for civility

 

[DOC]

Not so.
The tomb of Caesar has been known from his death till now :

http://catholic-resources.org/Photos/Rome99/Forum-06.jpg
http://catholic-resources.org/Photos/Rome99/Forum-07.jpg
From:
http://catholic-resources.org/AncientRome/Forum.htm


Kap

Well there is conflicting info on the internet. Bottom line is we don't have Julius Caesar's signature and his ashes were supposedly scattered by the conquering Visogoths. No signature, no urn filled with ashes.

 

[paximperium]

Well there is conflicting info on the internet. Bottom line is we don't have Julius Caesar's signature and his ashes were supposedly scattered by the conquering Visogoths. No signature, no urn filled with ashes.

The same with Jebus. So?

 

[Hokulele]

Well there is conflicting info on the internet. Bottom line is we don't have Julius Caesar's signature and his ashes were supposedly scattered by the conquering Visogoths. No signature, no urn filled with ashes.

Bottom line is we do not have people claiming Julius Caesar is still alive.

 

[Simon39759]

What are you referring to when you say "it's". And if it has anything to do with me give whole post of what I said.

You were arguing that, it did not matter if your arguments made sense or not, because, it was subjective and they convinced you.
All fair and good, and indeed, people have mentioned that before, but this attitude appears a bit silly after 1997 posts (come on, just a little more effort and you can break the 2,000 limit) about evidences

Of course I don't, read post 13, and then all the evidence I've brought in, some of which is in post 13104.

All, the pointless trivia? Unsupported and unlikely mental construct, logical fallacies and outright lies? Yep; I read them all.

Where is the quote that Geisler said this?

Maybe on the bottom of page 104 of Conversational Evangelism; starting with the paragraphe called: "The role of each step in Conversational Evangelism".

 

[Simon39759]

Well there is conflicting info on the internet. Bottom line is we don't have Julius Caesar's signature and his ashes were supposedly scattered by the conquering Visogoths. No signature, no urn filled with ashes.

Just like Jesus... And, just like Jesus, some Jews thought he was their messiah...
Coincidence?

 

[X]

I noticed you left out the sentences in my post immediately following the above sentence which were:

If Barack Obama went on TV and said he saw an alien at Camp David, that would increase the probability in my mind that aliens exist. If a transient on a street corner told me he saw an alien last night it probably wouldn't increase the probability that aliens exist for me.

(bolding and size added)

__

Anyone who read the whole paragraph which you cut short would have or should have known that I meant (regarding the president of India) it increased the probability in your own opinion and not whether or not it was an actual fact or not.

So why should something which affects your opinion have any affect on ours?

Especially when it has been pointed out to you time and again that we consider arguments based on their own merits, not the merits of the person who said them?


I want you to do something, DOC:

Every time you hear n argument for the veracity of the New Testament which you like sit back and as yourself:
"Is my opinion of this argument influenced by the person who said it?"
If the answer is yes, don't bother posting it.
Seriously.

We already understand that you have no grasp of logic at all.

You can stop giving evidence of that.
(even though it is the only thing you have given evidence of in this thread)

 

[amb]

Another post with no examples -- why don't you provide some other than the issue we are talking about, and explain how those other examples show a lack of reading comprehension.

No, I think your reading comprehension is spot on. Trouble is you read only what your faith requires you to read. Why not read something like A River Out Of Eden by Richard Dawkins, or his latest which is a great study of evolution : The Greatest Show On Earth.

 

[joobz]

Be sure to mention Luke 12:46-48.
Worked for me!

 

[kmortis]

Be sure to mention Luke 12:46-48.
Worked for me!

I wonder if there are any other dodgy passages that would send DOC into similar paroxysm of denial. I could go the feminist route (Mt 5:23, Rm 1:27 or 1 Co 14:34-35) or injustice (Mk 4:11-12) or many other passages...hrm

Mk 4:11-12 it is.
4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

So, Jesus, Son of God, Prince of Peace, and Savior of all Mankind speaks in riddles and parabels so that his listeners will be confused and not come to salvation? Nice...just freakin nice.

 

[Simon39759]

So why should something which affects your opinion have any affect on ours?

My impression is that DOC had decided that Geisler would be convincing.
Then, after 14,000 posts of being confronted by us with the paucity of his argument, he decided to try the: "I don't have to justify them; it's all personal". Which is fine but in dire contradiction with his O.P and the original theme of the thread...

As it has been pointed to him; I fully expect him to go back to the "But I DO have real evidence" BS...

 

[Aepervius]

350 page and no evidence whatsoever.

I think it is a fair summary, isn't it ?